Humans aren't apes... but biologically how?

[Speedwell]

a car isnt evidence of design? realy?

Right. A car is not evidence of design. A manufactured car is evidence of design.

 

[pshun2404]

Except that it didn't address THE QUESTION in the OP. Which was; "Biologically, how aren't humans apes?"

To me “Biologically” speaks to forms, functions, and system interactions and inter-dependencies of living organisms. This includes the relations to and interactions with their environment. So “how AREN’T humans apes?” This asks how and what ways are we different enough to not be placed in this man made category in tis intelligently designed system of classification.

So in a few posts I will demonstrate reasons why we may not be placed in this box as opposed to why we may.

As far as USincognito’s comment. I will ignore his unfounded assumption other than saying I did not find Marks’s quote on any such site. But I am busy at this time (with life) so I may not be immediately responsive

 

[VirOptimus]

To me “Biologically” speaks to forms, functions, and system interactions and inter-dependencies of living organisms. This includes the relations to and interactions with their environment. So “how AREN’T humans apes?” This asks how and what ways are we different enough to not be placed in this man made category in tis intelligently designed system of classification.

So in a few posts I will demonstrate reasons why we may not be placed in this box as opposed to why we may.

As far as USincognito’s comment. I will ignore his unfounded assumption other than saying I did not find Marks’s quote on any such site. But I am busy at this time (with life) so I may not be immediately responsive

Your belief doesnt matter, we are apes by definition.

 

[jonrgrover]

According to the Bible, humans are animals:
Ecclesiastes 3:18-19 King James Version (KJV)
18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

According to the Bible, God tells the truth in his creation:
Psalm 33:4 King James Version (KJV)
4 For the word of the Lord is right; and all his works are done in truth.

Therefore since the Bible and creation show us that we are animals and God's creation shows us that we are the most similar to animals that are apes, then the Bible says that we are apes.

[QUESTION RESOLVED]

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

According to the Bible, humans are animals:
Ecclesiastes 3:18-19 King James Version (KJV)
18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

According to the Bible, God tells the truth in his creation:
Psalm 33:4 King James Version (KJV)
4 For the word of the Lord is right; and all his works are done in truth.

Therefore since the Bible and creation show us that we are animals and God's creation shows us that we are the most similar to animals that are apes, then the Bible says that we are apes.

[QUESTION RESOLVED]

This is honestly the first time I've ever seen someone use the Bible to show that humans ARE apes. I'll give you kudos for that.

 

[Astrophile]

I don't think logically inconsistent premises can have logical consequences.

You're probably right, but I think that xianghua is arguing from obviously false premises, not from logically inconsistent premises. He's like a man who thinks that he's Napoleon and therefore concludes that his wife's name must be Josephine, and who defends this conclusion against all the evidence. The premise is false but it is not logically inconsistent.

To get back to the point, my argument in post 476 was that the possession of a shared trait, for example a gene that is broken in the same way in a large number of species of animals, or a mirror that is broken in the same way in a large number of cars, is evidence for common descent, but that does not show that the species of animal or the cars were not designed.

Of course, if one examines a large number of well-used cars of the same type and finds that they are all damaged in different ways, for example, that they have different mirrors broken, or that where they have the same mirror broken it is broken in different ways, one can conclude that the cars are not descended from a common ancestor, and that the damage is an acquired characteristic, not something inherited from the car's parents.

 

[pshun2404]

This is honestly the first time I've ever seen someone use the Bible to show that humans ARE apes. I'll give you kudos for that.

Me as well. Especially since it does not make that claim for or against.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Me as well. Especially since it does not make that claim for or against.

And yet many people feel that it does, which is the reason why this thread exists.

 

[pshun2404]

Except that it didn't address THE QUESTION in the OP. Which was; "Biologically, how aren't humans apes?"

First we can look at the more obvious outward topical characteristics and then I will address some issues we have discovered in science.


We have big brains (1100 cc to 1500 cc), they have small brains (300 cc to 600 cc)…

We are bi-pedal, and they are knuckle walkers,

We have pronounced chins, they have small receded chins,

We have a big toe in line with our other toes, and they have opposable or separated big toes.

Ours are for balance and walking, theirs for grasping and other forms of manipulation…

We also have very different skeletal structures…

We have rounded craniums and a flatter face, Apes have a flatter cranium with a pronounced sagittal crest and protruding lower face (better for biting adversaries)…they have a distinctly protruding brow ridge (which varies to a small degree) and we have a far less protruding brow ridge (which varies to a small degree)

The difference in the orbital socket allows us to see laterally for more than any ape but definitely more than chimps (their skull hinders viewing freely to the sides). Our eye sockets are allegedly wider relative to our height than a chimps and in humans the outer margin is recessed much further back.

Ape teeth demonstrate a need as a weapon and a show of dominance as well as for eating, where humans teeth are smaller, more regular, for eating (and sometimes part of attracting mates)

Our pelvis is properly designed for our distinctly bi-pedal gait, the Ape's is longer and narrower for knuckle walking, Humans by nature are bi-pedal except for short bursts of walking on all fours, apes are arboreal knuckle walkers with short bursts of standing or walking upright.

Our spines are long and straight for energy efficiency and support, the Apes is bent differently and positioned so their heads can jutt forward for walking on all fours.

Ape intelligence is dwarfed compared to even the lowest examples of human intelligence.

Humans demonstrate things like uniqueness of culture, religion, philosophy, abstract thinking, art, intricate application of symbolic thought, and more, where chimps exhibit none of these things,

Humans live very long compared to most apes.

We have a covering of fine hairs and with apes their's is thick, coarse, fur.

The best of signing chimps only know objects wanted or not wanted, and learn specific phrases or tasks taught by conditioning (in order to get food, petting, sex, and so on).

Human communication (language) utilizes vocabulary AND also syntax. For chimps "give orange me," can mean something totally different than "give me an orange" even among different signing chimps. We can condition them to sign “give orange me” to ask for an apple, or even “give me orange” to say “I am tired now”.

That would make no sense to a human (and even confuse a child). On the other hand, from a very young age, humans sense and understand syntax. If your two or three year old asks for some orange and you gave them apple, they would protest or say “No! Orange not apple”…or at least exhibit confusion. When taught this or that apes merely perform as conditioned, they do not get confused, nor do they associate the difference.

Humans appear to have an innate ability to create new meanings by combining and ordering words in diverse ways. Chimps studied, taught, and even conditioned for years, show no such capacity.

Human children demonstrate the ability (on their own) to vary syntax and express related ideas and concepts (sometimes very abstract), while even the most mature chimps, trained from birth show no propensity of being able to produce this variance to either communicate with others or even to get their own way.

Cognition scientists have concluded after half a century of research that apes are nearly unable to infer the mental state of another, like if they were interested in some goal, or in love, or jealous, or otherwise, while even 1 and 2 year old humans can do this (see the Project Nim documentary).

My proposition is not true because it has not been proven false...it is true because it has been proven true. These differences are real, and I believe they are significant enough to be considered meaningful to the full implications of "How humans are not apes" aside from us merely creating a new umbrella category to place them both in.

We should not just buy into the media popularized assessments but always pose new questions...you are free to disagree and believe these are not significant, but I say there are enough notable differences that these should be equally stressed.

Finally as lead in to the next few posts, depending on which description one presents, it IMPLIES to the hearer two different things....of course numerically they are the same.

However, IF presenting the 4 or 5% figures (or less) the masses assume incredible similarity...but IF the 120 or 165 million differences is stressed in the presentation then they get a totally different perspective. Millions of differences becomes the logical and factually demonstrated reality.

 

[pshun2404]

And yet many people feel that it does, which is the reason why this thread exists.

So you are saying many people believe the Bible teaches humans are apes? You will have to show me that one kiddo.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

First we can look at the more obvious outward topical characteristics and then I will address some issues we have discovered in science.


We have big brains (1100 cc to 1500 cc), they have small brains (300 cc to 600 cc)…

We are bi-pedal, and they are knuckle walkers,

We have pronounced chins, they have small receded chins,

We have a big toe in line with our other toes, and they have opposable or separated big toes.

Ours are for balance and walking, theirs for grasping and other forms of manipulation…

We also have very different skeletal structures…

We have rounded craniums and a flatter face, Apes have a flatter cranium with a pronounced sagittal crest and protruding lower face (better for biting adversaries)…they have a distinctly protruding brow ridge (which varies to a small degree) and we have a far less protruding brow ridge (which varies to a small degree)

The difference in the orbital socket allows us to see laterally for more than any ape but definitely more than chimps (their skull hinders viewing freely to the sides). Our eye sockets are allegedly wider relative to our height than a chimps and in humans the outer margin is recessed much further back.

Ape teeth demonstrate a need as a weapon and a show of dominance as well as for eating, where humans teeth are smaller, more regular, for eating (and sometimes part of attracting mates)

Our pelvis is properly designed for our distinctly bi-pedal gait, the Ape's is longer and narrower for knuckle walking, Humans by nature are bi-pedal except for short bursts of walking on all fours, apes are arboreal knuckle walkers with short bursts of standing or walking upright.

Our spines are long and straight for energy efficiency and support, the Apes is bent differently and positioned so their heads can jutt forward for walking on all fours.

Ape intelligence is dwarfed compared to even the lowest examples of human intelligence.

Humans demonstrate things like uniqueness of culture, religion, philosophy, abstract thinking, art, intricate application of symbolic thought, and more, where chimps exhibit none of these things,

Humans live very long compared to most apes.

We have a covering of fine hairs and with apes their's is thick, coarse, fur.

The best of signing chimps only know objects wanted or not wanted, and learn specific phrases or tasks taught by conditioning (in order to get food, petting, sex, and so on).

Human communication (language) utilizes vocabulary AND also syntax. For chimps "give orange me," can mean something totally different than "give me an orange" even among different signing chimps. We can condition them to sign “give orange me” to ask for an apple, or even “give me orange” to say “I am tired now”.

That would make no sense to a human (and even confuse a child). On the other hand, from a very young age, humans sense and understand syntax. If your two or three year old asks for some orange and you gave them apple, they would protest or say “No! Orange not apple”…or at least exhibit confusion. When taught this or that apes merely perform as conditioned, they do not get confused, nor do they associate the difference.

Humans appear to have an innate ability to create new meanings by combining and ordering words in diverse ways. Chimps studied, taught, and even conditioned for years, show no such capacity.

Human children demonstrate the ability (on their own) to vary syntax and express related ideas and concepts (sometimes very abstract), while even the most mature chimps, trained from birth show no propensity of being able to produce this variance to either communicate with others or even to get their own way.

Cognition scientists have concluded after half a century of research that apes are nearly unable to infer the mental state of another, like if they were interested in some goal, or in love, or jealous, or otherwise, while even 1 and 2 year old humans can do this (see the Project Nim documentary).

My proposition is not true because it has not been proven false...it is true because it has been proven true. These differences are real, and I believe they are significant enough to be considered meaningful to the full implications of "How humans are not apes" aside from us merely creating a new umbrella category to place them both in.

We should not just buy into the media popularized assessments but always pose new questions...you are free to disagree and believe these are not significant, but I say there are enough notable differences that these should be equally stressed.

Finally as lead in to the next few posts, depending on which description one presents, it IMPLIES to the hearer two different things....of course numerically they are the same.

However, IF presenting the 4 or 5% figures (or less) the masses assume incredible similarity...but IF the 120 or 165 million differences is stressed in the presentation then they get a totally different perspective. Millions of differences becomes the logical and factually demonstrated reality.

Yeah, this shows that humans are different to apes, but it doesn't show that humans AREN'T apes.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you are saying many people believe the Bible teaches humans are apes? You will have to show me that one kiddo.

Yeah, easy.
Did humans evolve from apes? by Creation.com
Humans did not evolve from chimps, gorillas, or orangutans. However, according to Darwinian evolution, humans are related to modern apes in that we shared a common ancestor.

Since Charles Darwin first proposed the basis for such ideas in the 19th century when he wrote On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, molecules-to-man evolution has increasingly been taught as fact. Later, he fleshed out the idea of human evolution from a common ancestor with apes in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.

The concept that humans and apes share a common ancestor contrasts with what we read in the Bible, because on the sixth day God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” (Genesis 1:26) Further, in verse 27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” In Genesis chapter 2 it gives us more details, including that God made Adam from ‘dust’ and fashioned Eve, the first woman, from part of his side.

 

[pshun2404]

Except that it didn't address THE QUESTION in the OP. Which was; "Biologically, how aren't humans apes?"

Now let’s look a little at the language of persuasion? For example, the “only 1.8% difference” language, describing the similarity between humans and chimps, is truly just an opinion! The actual difference is more like 5% (National Geographic claims 4% but close enough to show the smaller number to be enhanced) and most scientists agree with the greater numbers while given the same data. Even 4% of 3,000,000,000 base pairs equals 120 MILLION differences and if 5% it becomes 165,000,000 differences at this most basic level.

In the limited and chosen sections of the genome accessed for these 1.8% studies, exploring the limited aspects of the genome that they selectively used to derive these figures, add to that the fact that the average person will not bother to understand, most are simply persuaded by the appeal to authority, and by their faith in statistics (see How to Lie with Statistics, by Darrell Huff…a must read for any statisticians).

Secondly, being already programmed to believe it, we do not question the alleged consensus figure (1,8%). It does not matter that it is an inadequate and incorrect analysis. Instead we accept it as confirmation (but it is skewed by the interpreters, not those scientists who did the studies)

In my opinion, one of the very best and most complete studies, as far as I know, is that of Fujiyama, Watanabe, Toyoda, Taylor, Itoh, Tsai, Park, Yaspo, Lehrach, Chen, Fu, Saitou, Osoegawa, de Jong, Suto, Hattori, and Sakaki (2002), titled, ‘Construction and analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map’ found in Science 295:131-134, and that study actually utilized only 19.8 million selected base pairs (out of 3 BILLION). Though this sounds huge, when compared to the total known differences (120 to 165 MILLION differences) it really is not large or significant at all, thus nothing learned in this study should be generalized as an overall fact, but sadly for many it is.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

For example, the “only 1.8% difference” language, describing the similarity between humans and chimps, is truly just an opinion!

I'm going to have to stop your right there: what makes you think that that figure is an 'opinion'? How are you qualified to say that it is an 'opinion'?

 

[pshun2404]

Yeah, easy.
Did humans evolve from apes? by Creation.com
Humans did not evolve from chimps, gorillas, or orangutans. However, according to Darwinian evolution, humans are related to modern apes in that we shared a common ancestor.

Since Charles Darwin first proposed the basis for such ideas in the 19th century when he wrote On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, molecules-to-man evolution has increasingly been taught as fact. Later, he fleshed out the idea of human evolution from a common ancestor with apes in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.

The concept that humans and apes share a common ancestor contrasts with what we read in the Bible, because on the sixth day God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” (Genesis 1:26) Further, in verse 27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” In Genesis chapter 2 it gives us more details, including that God made Adam from ‘dust’ and fashioned Eve, the first woman, from part of his side.

And that shows how the Bible teaches that humans are apes how? Remember that was the poster's claim.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And that shows how the Bible teaches that humans are apes how? Remember that was the poster's claim.

... you really didn't get it? Like, maybe the italicized and bolded part didn't tip you off? Really?!

 

[pshun2404]

I'm going to have to stop your right there: what makes you think that that figure is an 'opinion'? How are you qualified to say that it is an 'opinion'?

Read the studies! It was a figure derived from studying selected portions hence not nearly a representation of the complete package. Add to that that most scientists disagree and say more like 4 to 5% (that from including other factors) the picture immediately begins to change.

Now before we enter on this journey please re-examine a quote from a prominent evolutionist. In What Makes Biology Unique? (p. 198, Cambridge University Press, 2004), Ernst Mayr revealed to us that “The earliest fossils of Homo… are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”

So to actually be OBJECTIVE, we must be willing and intellectually capable of separating the made up story constructed (usually paradigm based) from the real simple data.

Now with that in mind, aside from the FACT that there are no less than 165,000,000 differences in the base pair sequences (around 4 to 5%) we have recently found 1,307 orphan genes that are completely different between humans and chimpanzees, and these from just four areas of tissue samples. We can only imagine the vast numbers of differences that will be revealed once more areas are fully analyzed (see J. Ruiz-Orera, 2015, “Origins of De Novo Genes in Humans and Chimpanzees”, PLoS Genetics. 11 (12): e1005721). The standard mantra drilled into us is that Humans co-evolved alongside Chimpanzees from a common primate ancestor, but is there really evidence for this claim? Do we have any idea what or who this alleged common ancestor was? (I assure you we do not)

Orphan genes, as many here know, are found only in particular lineages of particular creatures, or sometimes only in a specific species, or only a variety within a species. What is really interesting is they appear to have no have evolutionary history shared by any other evolutionary ancient creature.

Despite that, we have come to know these genes are incredibly important! Their expression often dictates very specific qualities and processes allowing for specialized adaptations of particular tissues, like the antisense gene, NCYM, which is over-expressed in neuroblastoma; this gene inhibits the activity of glycogen synthase kinase 3β (GSK3β), which targets NMYC for degradation (Suenaga Y, Islam SMR, Alagu J, Kaneko Y, Kato M, et al. (2014) NCYM, a Cis-antisense gene of MYCN, encodes a de novo evolved protein that inhibits GSK3β resulting in the stabilization of MYCN in human neuroblastomas. PLoS Genet 10: e1003996. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003996).

Some contribute to specific proteins unique only to that type of organism or to varieties within a species.

This genetic curiosity has been being studied for around 20 years with little insight as to why they are there at all (where did they come from), and we are just beginning to see how they function. But the doubted thousands of additional differences this will add to the human/ape differences scenario is staggering.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Read the studies! It was a figure derived from studying selected portions hence not nearly a representation of the complete package. Add to that that most scientists disagree and say more like 4 to 5% (that from including other factors) the picture immediately begins to change.

Now before we enter on this journey please re-examine a quote from a prominent evolutionist. In What Makes Biology Unique? (p. 198, Cambridge University Press, 2004), Ernst Mayr revealed to us that “The earliest fossils of Homo… are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”

So to actually be OBJECTIVE, we must be willing and intellectually capable of separating the made up story constructed (usually paradigm based) from the real simple data.

Now with that in mind, aside from the FACT that there are no less than 165,000,000 differences in the base pair sequences (around 4 to 5%) we have recently found 1,307 orphan genes that are completely different between humans and chimpanzees, and these from just four areas of tissue samples. We can only imagine the vast numbers of differences that will be revealed once more areas are fully analyzed (see J. Ruiz-Orera, 2015, “Origins of De Novo Genes in Humans and Chimpanzees”, PLoS Genetics. 11 (12): e1005721). The standard mantra drilled into us is that Humans co-evolved alongside Chimpanzees from a common primate ancestor, but is there really evidence for this claim? Do we have any idea what or who this alleged common ancestor was? (I assure you we do not)

Orphan genes, as many here know, are found only in particular lineages of particular creatures, or sometimes only in a specific species, or only a variety within a species. What is really interesting is they appear to have no have evolutionary history shared by any other evolutionary ancient creature.

Despite that, we have come to know these genes are incredibly important! Their expression often dictates very specific qualities and processes allowing for specialized adaptations of particular tissues, like the antisense gene, NCYM, which is over-expressed in neuroblastoma; this gene inhibits the activity of glycogen synthase kinase 3β (GSK3β), which targets NMYC for degradation (Suenaga Y, Islam SMR, Alagu J, Kaneko Y, Kato M, et al. (2014) NCYM, a Cis-antisense gene of MYCN, encodes a de novo evolved protein that inhibits GSK3β resulting in the stabilization of MYCN in human neuroblastomas. PLoS Genet 10: e1003996. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003996).

Some contribute to specific proteins unique only to that type of organism or to varieties within a species.

This genetic curiosity has been being studied for around 20 years with little insight as to why they are there at all (where did they come from), and we are just beginning to see how they function. But the doubted thousands of additional differences this will add to the human/ape differences scenario is staggering.

Okay, even if the 1.8% figure is wrong (calling it an opinion is a very loaded statement), how does a difference of between 4% and 5% mean that humans aren't biologically apes?

 

[pshun2404]

... you really didn't get it? Like, maybe the italicized and bolded part didn't tip you off? Really?!

Yes I got it. The italicized bold parts do NOT teach humans are apes....

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes I got it. The italicized bold parts do NOT teach humans are apes....

But many people feel that it does and they like to say that it does, which is something I and many others have seen on this forum and also on online Creationist literature.

 

[pshun2404]

Okay, even if the 1.8% figure is wrong (calling it an opinion is a very loaded statement), how does a difference of between 4% and 5% mean that humans aren't biologically apes?

Because at this simplest genomic level we are very different (120 to 165 MILLION differences revealed just here). You know what the difference amd/or mutation in a much smaller number of base pairs can do (even just a few).